Lawsuit aims to stop proposed Cardiff School rebuild

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article has been updated to include quotes from Cardiff School District officials.

ENCINITAS — Opponents of a proposed redesign of the Cardiff Elementary School campus have filed a lawsuit to suspend the project until the Cardiff School District performs a more thorough assessment of its environmental impacts.

But the school district, while not directly
addressing the lawsuit, said it is standing by the project and the process it
took to arriving at the proposed redesign.

“It’s been a very public process, a democratic
process, and everything has been above board and transparent,” school board
member Siena Randall said. “I feel confident as a board member and proud of the
work that has been done here. All of this work has been done with a positive
outcome for the kids in mind.”

Officials said opponents don’t represent the
majority of residents, who approve of the district’s plans.

“When the vast majority like the changes that
are being proposed, why should the community settle for less than what they
have requested through an extensive, lengthy design process because a few
people don’t like the outcome of the process?” Randall asked. “The vast
majority of residents are fine with it, there are only a few people who aren’t.”

The lawsuit filing is the latest in an escalating battle between the school district and a group of residents who have opposed the proposed overhaul since drawings of the redesign were made public in 2017.

Cardiff School District officials have been
working on the campus overhaul since 2016, when voters passed Measure GG, a $22
million bond measure. The plan includes the construction of new buildings and
the construction of a new multi-purpose room and outdoor amphitheater on land
that is currently part of the district-owned George Berkich Park.

The park’s baseball field would be eliminated
under the proposal, and the district would join the two grass fields, currently
separated by playground equipment, to create a longer, contiguous field that
could be host to two simultaneous soccer matches.

A group known as the Cardiff Preservation
Society launched a campaign called “Save the Park and Build the School” nearly
two years ago.

First, opponents focused on the impacts the
redesign would have on the community. But in 2018, they began arguing that the
school district’s plans run afoul of a 1993 funding agreement between the
district, the Department of State Parks and the U.S. National Parks Service
that requires the land to remain a park in perpetuity in exchange for the grant
funding unless the state and federal agencies sign off on a change.

As it turns out, the district said it also learned that a campus renovation in 2002 ran afoul of the agreement, as part of two campus buildings are encroaching on the original park boundaries.

The district’s plan, officials said, would address the current and previous boundary concerns and bring the district into compliance with the state and federal requirements.

Opponents in the lawsuit argue that the district’s position doesn’t take into account other alternatives that wouldn’t include further encroachment on the park, such as filing a retroactive appeal to accept the 2002 boundary changes.

“If the No Project Alternative were to be selected, Respondent could still regain and maintain compliance with the…Agreement by filing for a retroactive conversion approval,” the lawsuit states.

The other alternatives, opponents said, the district hasn’t considered was demolishing the campus and rebuilding it on the same footprint.

Back in December, an official with the
Department of State Parks said that the agency was “working closely with the
school district and the city of Encinitas to guide them through the (agreement)
processes for changing the boundary,” but offered no comment on the redesign
itself.

The school district has proposed redrawing the
park’s boundaries to include the redesigned campus’ proposed parking lot to
compensate for the park land lost in the construction, which the Preservation
Society has panned as an unequal swap.

“The School wants to try to convince the NPS
and the State Parks Service to swap the grassy open fields that are intensely
used by the community and the school with views to the ocean for an asphalted
parking lot and drop off lanes of the School,” wrote Tricia Smith, the mother
of Mayor Catherine Blakespear, who is one of the key opponents of the project. “There
are a large group of citizens who strongly object to the swap of asphalt for
open space.”

But district officials said that the state
parks Office of Grants and Local Services, which administers the boundary swap
decisions, suggested the board draw the boundaries to include the entire
parking lot.

Randy Peterson, the district’s contract bond
program manager, said adding the parking lot to the boundaries makes sense
because it would serve recreation area’s users, including soccer teams that use
the fields on weekends.

“There’s an added benefit because you are
providing a level of parking on site which allows people beyond walking and
biking to come and use the recreation areas,” Peterson said.

The city of Encinitas, which was also party to
the agreement, is required to endorse the proposal before state and federal
officials make a determination. Opponents said the city postponed the decision
from March 20 until mid-April, while school board officials said the item was
never placed on the March agenda, but would take it up April 17.

Peterson said thus far the district has
received nothing but “positive” responses from state officials and is confident
the city will approve the project.

Opponents, however, say the Sierra Club
recently weighed in against the school district’s proposal in a recent letter,
which it said “completely undermines the goals and principals of the (funding
agreement).”

Peterson said the district met with Sierra
Club officials and said they were told the club would be revising its position
after addressing what they called “incorrect information” given to the group by
opponents.

Save the Park and Build the School filed the
lawsuit on March 8. It alleges that the proposal, and the environmental impact
report fall short of several key areas of the state Environmental Quality Act,
known as CEQA.

The project, the group argues, would lead to
the removal of 47 trees — some of which are healthy — block coastal views,
potentially impact the historical Little Brick Building, which sits on the park’s
northwestern edge and alters the park, which they argue damages the community.

“The Project completely overhauls the design
and appearance of George Berkich Park,

which is an important and well-loved community
resource,” the lawsuit states. “Such a change would negatively affect the
character of the surrounding community. Furthermore, the change in layout of
the school will change the view residents and other visitors to the area have
of the Pacific Ocean.

“As a seaside town, Cardiff is admired for its
ocean views and property near the school is coveted and valuable because of
these views,” the lawsuit continues. “Obstructing views of the Pacific Ocean for
the public and the residents is not in alignment with the basic character of
the Cardiff community.”

The group also argues that the approval of the
environmental exemptions was premature given the district had not secured
approval for the boundary change from state and federal officials.

Peterson and school district officials said
they performed an EIR because the group threatened to sue if they didn’t, even
though the officials believed the project was exempt from the full-blown
environmental study.

Opposition to the project began in earnest in
late 2017, when the group of residents cried foul at the district’s proposed
redesign. They packed an October 2017 school board meeting urging the district
to reconsider the proposal.

Originally, the opposition focused on the
aesthetics and the taking of parkland, as well as concerns that the project did
not match the description given by the school district in the bond
proposal.

It wasn’t until 2018 when opponents learned the district had to receive approval to change the boundaries that they focused their efforts on blocking the change.

Since that time, opposition to the project has grown. A recent petition against the expansion has more than 250 signatures, and a number of residents have spoken at board meetings to express concerns with the project.

Since 2017, the district has made several
changes to the original design, including backing off the original plan of
building both the multi-purpose room and kindergarten classrooms on park
space.

It also attempted to address concerns about the floor plan — which opponents argued was too sprawled — the loss of green space, trees and views. The final iteration of the plan, released in May 2018, proposed fewer of the large courtyards than in the previous proposals and relocated the multipurpose room on a lower section of current field so that it didn’t impact views as much as the first plan.

Superintendent Jill Vinson said the district
has reached a point where it is unwilling to compromise any more, and any
further changes would jeopardize campus safety. The district has sought to move
the multi-purpose room from its current location to keep visitors from walking
through campus to access it.

“Especially when (the compromise) is only addressing a handful of people,” Vinson said.

7 comments

SavetheParkMarch 13, 2019 at 6:30 pm

I trust that the District is better at teaching math than it is at actually doing it. Its own records, which are publicly available on its website, show that 40+ people wrote letters expressing strong opposition to expansion onto Berkich Park. More than 250 people signed an on-line petition to save Berkich Park. Unless someone has very big hands, both 40 and 250 are significantly more than a handful.

The core principles of journalism include truth, accuracy, fairness and impartiality. This article interviews no one with an opposing view and accepts as facts assertions that are demonstrably false had the author bothered to review the public record.

Aaron Burgin here. I don’t believe there is a point in the story where anything that anyone states is accepted as facts. The lawsuit speaks for itself in terms of the issues that are raised about the project. The original draft of the story actually contained no comment from the district. The district was given an opportunity to give their point of view on the project. The paper doesn’t take a position on either of those, nor does it state that one side has more merit than the other. I’ve been in contact with Tricia Smith, who actually raised our attention to the upcoming Council meeting and another opponent (who I won’t name on this forum), who gave me a heads up about the lawsuit. We’ll continue to provide updates on the lawsuit, the council decision and other issues surrounding the topic as they arise.

I’d like to thank the Coast news for allowing the board to express their opinions as well. As a longtime resident of Cardiff, I can honestly say The Cardiff Preservation Society is a farce started by a handful of neighbors. The 250 signatures comprise a wide variety of people, the problem is some are from out of town, some are from different states, some are relatives , some are family members, some are duplicates, and many are kids. It’s not hard to get 250 signatures. The vast majority of Cardiff residents voted for this redevelopment and are excited to get it started. This lawsuit is just a lame attempt to protect their views and nothing more. Our children deserve better, let’s stop the nonsense and build a beautiful school for Cardiff

I voted for the bond measure, and urged many friends and neighbors to vote for it as well based on the master plan proposed by the District prior to the vote on Measure GG. After seeing what is now proposed, I would not have voted for it, and would have urged my friends and neighbors to vote “no”. The majority of the 40+ people who wrote letters in opposition to the EIR indicated that they, too, voted in favor of GG and now regret that vote. The vast majority of those opponents, including myself, would experience no view impact, so stop scapegoating a small number of people who will have view impacts. You cannot rely on the margin by which the measure passed in 2016, based on very different information, to say that a majority of residents support the current plan. There’s nothing preventing the District from building a beautiful school on its existing footprint. There are, however, two agreements and federal law blocking them from expanding onto a permanently-protected park, which they have known about for more than a year, yet have persisted in moving forward with their expansion plan. As it stands, they are not going to get the city, state, or federal approval they need to do that expansion onto the park. Had they not chosen to expand, they would be preparing to begin construction on schedule and within budget, with no opposition.